Please begin by reading Robert Zubrin’s essay, The Case for Nuclear Power. All comments and questions are welcome—you need not be firmly for or against the proposition—but they must be relevant to it. Here is a master list of logical fallacies: Indulging in any of them will knock five points off your score. (Possible total score: 100.)
For a change, we’ve decided to open this thread to people who don’t subscribe to CG. Only subscribers, however, will be eligible for the Grand Prize (and it will be very grand indeed).
Since brevity is the soul of wit, I thought it appropriate to post my basic opinion in stand-alone form. My further thoughts are as follows:
This is not an either-or proposition: nuclear v. renewables. A practical energy policy might well specify for the latter a supporting role. It surely would be no more prudent to place total reliance on nuclear power that it would be to place it on wind and solar power.
Nuclear power tests the Greens’ sincerity. If they really are dedicated to “fighting climate change,” a broad-scale shift to nuclear power is the most practical means of doing so—technologically, economically and politically. If the Greens dispute that, I for one will feel justified in my suspicions concerning their true motives.
The United States with its abundant reserves of relatively clean-burning natural gas is in a good position to manage a gradual shift to nuclear power, with minimum economic and political disruption—in sharp contrast to the Green New Deal. Why should America rely on GND unicorn dust when it has a practical alternative available?
Aesthetics matter. There are few things uglier than a big wind farm or solar panel array. Full reliance on renewal energy would require vast tracts of land to be converted into energy factories: the grim satanic mills of the Green Revolution. In my opinion, we should avoid doing so if at all possible.
Mr. Zubrin is obviously correct. Nuclear power is a proven technology with an excellent safety and environmental record that is quite capable of supplying our civilization with the energy it needs. On the other hand, the case for so-called renewables rests on a set of speculative premisses, seasoned with a big pinch of wishful thinking.
I see Zubrin’s point about the anti nuclear lobby. Obama was pretty good at kicking cans down the road for someone else to solve, like nuclear repositories and Iranian nuclear treaties. But I think the bigger challenge for nuclear is the regulatory regime.
In the US and Canada, it’s a mess. Well intentioned and competent fabricators and contractors struggle to unravel and determine what is required. Codes and regulatory guides take decades to be updated. I have worked on Vogtle (the only plant under construction in NA since Three Mile Is) and I have visited the identical design being built in China. There was a world of difference in schedule and approach.
I recall attending a conference with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in a panel discussion where one member, unbidden, declared that it was the best regulator in the world. If that’s not hubris.......
Yes the CCP is evil and they may be cutting corners but we could do much better. What I saw there was a professional, safety conscious and technically advanced project being completed in a fraction of the time.
So yes nuclear power is a solution if we want to make it one.
To be fair Eric a LOT of US government regulatory agencies think they are the best in the world. I am not sure if I should make this comment here or in the comments section for the podcast second half but I do think there is a problem with Claire's view in the podcast that we have to respect democracy even when we disagree with it in that is I think are huge tensions when you give veto rights to voters at the state level in the US or at the EU Member State level in the EU as to whether or not to allow nuclear power. That is you invite regulatory and democratic arbitrage and anger/resistance to that arbitrage.
I mentioned that earlier today I was out having lunch just down the road from the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant in New Hampshire whose construction was wildly controversial at the time. My personal opinion is that part of the reason it was so controversial is not because of the largely spurious claims about safety it's opponents mostly living across the state line a mile or two away in Massachusetts were making but the plant construction was an end run around the fact that at the time nuclear was very unpopular in Massachusetts at a democratic level and the same plant wouldn't and couldn't be built in the bay state. So from the standpoint of the plant's opponents in Massachusetts while they never said this publically the resented the plants backers in state of New Hampshire building a nuclear plant that far exceeded the power consumption needs of New Hampshire just across the state border that was obviously intended to be an "end one" around what was a very popular policy democratically in Massachusetts against nuclear power. Thus the plants opponents like the Clamshell alliance unable to influence New Hampshire state politics in Concord from out of state essentially had through everything they had at screwing up and slowing down the US Federal level safety approval process to try to stop what they saw as an undemocratic end run around Massachusetts democratic sovereignty. Yucca Mountain in it's own way was another example of this.
So in conclusion if you accept the small d democratic right of German voters to reject nuclear power as Claire suggests you might also invite a very nasty fight when some enterprising people in France let say try to get around this prohibition by constructing a bunch of new nuclear plants on the French side of the Franco-German border and then export all of their electricity output into Germany like Seabrook's backers in New Hampshire did with Massachusetts. This is especially so when much of sentiment against nuclear is caused by disinformation to begin with.
Well, if a people deserve their government, then they also deserve the consequences of democratic accountability. So if the citizens of Germany oppose nuclear power, I presume they’re prepared to live with the consequences...
I would generally agree with this but we are seeing more and more evidence that in democratic countries populations are increasingly unwilling to live with the consequences of their decisions.
I’m not sure this is the “debate forum” or just the comments section for this latest article on Nuclear Energy. Nevertheless, I’ll post my comments here.
First, I am a proponent of nuclear energy. The demand for reliable electricity will only increase as more and more electric vehicles come on line.
Second, I concur that fossil fuel carbon emissions should decrease for the many reasons that have been outlined over the last several days. The industrial revolution has (with little doubt) sped up the natural occurring warming cycle the earth has been experiencing over the last 15,000 years. We must do what we can, and be smart about it, not reactionary.
Third, solar and wind and hydro all have their place; however, the need for batteries and their components to provide electrical storage and continuity, make the total positive environmental effect suspect, and in need of rigorous scientific study. (Personally from my experience living off the grid, wind and solar always require an on site fossil fuel generator to fill in the energy gaps).
Finally, I spent over two years working on a permanent nuclear waste repository site back during the Reagan administration. Many areas around the country were being scientifically evaluated for safety and practicality. All the proposed locations were geographically isolated, and far from human population centers. The specific site I worked on was the subterranean salt formations in the Panhandle of Texas. Huge mine shafts were drilled and as well as many smaller exploratory cores. Although, it was an interesting study and much data gathered, it soon became apparent that any decision about a permanent waste site would be based on politics not science. I left the project before it’s completion but continued to follow its progress through friends and reports in the media.
Eventually, the funding dried up and the most distant, isolated, location was chosen in Nevada. Nevertheless, Senator Harry Reid used his power and influence to have President Obama cancel the project.
Conclusion, everybody wants electricity but no one wants the plant, waste products, wind and/or solar farms in their backyard. I’ve concluded nuclear power is our best chance out of this energy matrix. But until endless regulatory and environmental battles can be modulated and curtailed, I am disheartened, and increasingly cynical, that any real progress will be made.
In the end, we really are in control of nothing. But we must try. Why? Because that’s what we do with this large evolved brain. We can’t help it. A large asteroid could strike the earth and wipe us all out. This generally accepted theory as to one of the earths great extinction events was only in its infancy during my undergraduate days. The prevailing wisdom at the time was gradual environmental and evolutionary change. Now it seems that rapid change can, and does, occur after perhaps millennia of relative quiet. (Lots of minus points I know).
I am still trying to figure out what I want to say in this forum. Myself after having my second Covid shot on Thursday I went out for a really nice lunch along the New Hampshire Seacoast not far from the infamous Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant over the past few hours. So I at least can say I am putting my money were my mouth is with regards to nuclear power.
Something though I can't seem to figure out is whether this is a discussion about the world at large or just Europe? Whenever I bring up examples outside of Europe Ronald, Ben, and Alex seem to keep coming back at me saying that what happens outside of Europe is irrelevant to the discussion. I can't seem to figure out if this is the Cosmopolitan Europeanist or the Cosmopolitan Globalist.
I think Zubrin is correct. An increasing standard of living requires energy, and lots of it. While I agree that solar power has come a long way, and should be part of the solution, I am not convinced it will stand up to the increasing needs the way nuclear energy can and should. Keep in mind, I work for a company that is the largest manufacturer of industrial batteries in the world. I have a vested interest (literally) in a world that needs batteries. I think we always will, regardless of the source of baseload electricity. I think that if every home, everywhere, were powered by cheap and clean nuclear energy, there would be no need for solar power at all.
That said, I am not sure how we get that case across to policy makers. "Green" energy is chic. It can be done well, in fact my company has been working on smart inverter products that help homeowners reduce reliance on the grid. I think that affordable, small scale solar installations that are "behind the meter" and include storage can do a lot in the short term to alleviate reliance on dirty fossil fuels. I think that if we make these systems pay for themselves, we can have short term success. At my last calculation, such a system for my own home would be a net break even, paying for itself just as it needs to be replaced. Someday soon, I think, we'll be able to justify these costs.
While I agree w Mr. Zubrin that nuclear power production is operationally very safe, I remain against nuclear power because the waste problem is not solved. I do have some background on the subject but it is just grad school research on the history of the waste question. So, an overview of the sweep of the questions and the maneuvers/responses. Nevada was the least problematic geologically but the site design would not hold the current (as of about 10-15 years ago) inventory of waste so was not in itself a complete solution. The U.S. government has been studying the disposal problem for decades. A place to start in the disposal lit review is with: National Research Council, Committee on Waste Disposal, The Disposal of Radioactive Waste on Land, (Washington: National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, 1957.
The researchers saw the problems in the 1950s and never devoted much in the way of prioritized R&D into the disposal problem. Geologic storage was one fashion and of the initial proposals for a number of sites, the then politically-weak Nevada was left standing in the disposal site NIMBY game of musical chairs. The Savannah, GA MOX project was at times promising but the tech solution never adequately matured. The WIPP in NM continues as a pilot but geologic storage in salt deposits, while better than most geologic storage solutions in many ways, is not problem-free.
From an accounting and moral perspective, on-site storage at production facilities closely associates the risk with the reward. This is a terrible solution but I believe that overall it remains "the best" in a cost-benefit sense. Certainly not a security and safety sense.
In my view, the new enthusiasm for nuclear power is a swing-for-the-fences attempt at the pill-theory of problem solving. Given the decades of hype about the peaceful atom, I'll remain highly skeptical until the technical evidence begins to outweigh the tech hype. And on the green tech hype questions, I am not a fan of solar - hell of an environmental footprint/impact across the full lifecyle.
The obvious retort is, Well, Dave, what is your solution? I have seriously studied this question for decades and I don't have a good answer other than getting off of coal and converting as much as possible to nat gas and wind but also getting away from solar as much as possible is a better answer than coal - I live in a city which is powered by awful ignite plants and would love to see this end asap.
Solve the waste problem for nuclear and I am onboard.
The current volume of nuclear waste is small. Compared to the volume of decommissioned solar panel and wind turbine waist, it is really small. That is why Yucca Mountain was a good idea. All the current waste and much more would fit there easily.
Lithium mining and refining creates millions of tons of toxic waste. The Chinese dump it on the surface. That isn't good for the ecosystem.
Some 4 generations reactors can use the waste from the older reactors as fuel. That could be part of the solution.
I always thought Dixie Lee Ray (scientist and former governor of the state of Washington) had an idea worth pursuing. She noted that the floor of the deepest parts of the ocean has a high radiation level. She wanted to encase nuclear waste in really hard glass like material and drop it in these deep places where the radiation would fit right in.
Both the decision to down select to Yucca in the late 1980s and the decision to walk away from Yucca decades later were arguably more political than technical. The solution has been a hot potato since the 1950s and the interest in and expenditure of political capital on disposal have been episodic.
I've heard the claims about the Gen4 reactors using waste as fuel but for now I see the Gen4 premise as tech hype. I'll buy it when we get beyond the paper engineering used to entice VC and federal R&D funding. Indeed, there is a tech maturity/plausibility reason that the tech hype has cooled off from its high point a few years ago. E.g. the "news" from MIT's reactor lab has dropped off quite a bit from just a few years back, etc. Perhaps a better solution is to not "highly" enrich and work with low-enriched uranium - economics are really just a matter of priority given the environmental urgency but I won't hold my breath on a political consensus becoming dominant in the U.S. that paying more sooner is better than the status quo of kicking the can down the road.
The AEC got way out in front of their skis with their licensing/disposal promises decades ago during the heyday. There was never any significant disposal R&D investment. Like most tech ideas, the enthusiasts up sell the plus side and disregard the downside - indeed, this is the case for solar. Wind turbine waste is less of an issue.
I too wonder why deep ocean or subduction zone disposal hasn't panned out. That to me seems to be the only geologic option. There is plenty of high level waste from early projects in the 60s that are lying on the ocean floor off the coast of LA and Massachusetts - these were just in barrels. I haven't heard about emerging consequences and these were certainly not disposed of contentiously.
Anyone have thoughts on why Germany is going away from nuclear and coal and towards gas and wind?
I also would prefer more concrete results on Gen4 before I get too excited. I am impatiently waiting for a prototype that produces electricity.
I think things will move faster if we can get away from on-site construction and each reactor complex being a unique design.
Producing identical reactors with parts small enough to be transported and assembled at the site would seem to be the best end result if we can get there.
I don't understand Germany on this issue at all. Is a sort of mass hysteria a possible explanation?
On the Gen4 and standardizing designs - agreed. I'm convinced that the tech is matureable but it needs some work. Yes, the nuclear power vision of the 1950s was to place generation close to consumption. Disney's 'Our Friend the Atom' was very enthusiastic about the possibilities of nuclear generation.
On Germany, my read is that they just really want to get off of coal but I'm not sure about the nuclear angle. I keep up with the ideas at the Clean Energy Wire site but don't claim to have a comprehensive understanding. In contrast, France has been very up on nuclear for decades and their geologic storage has been in facilities less suitable than the Yucca geology.
Since brevity is the soul of wit, I thought it appropriate to post my basic opinion in stand-alone form. My further thoughts are as follows:
This is not an either-or proposition: nuclear v. renewables. A practical energy policy might well specify for the latter a supporting role. It surely would be no more prudent to place total reliance on nuclear power that it would be to place it on wind and solar power.
Nuclear power tests the Greens’ sincerity. If they really are dedicated to “fighting climate change,” a broad-scale shift to nuclear power is the most practical means of doing so—technologically, economically and politically. If the Greens dispute that, I for one will feel justified in my suspicions concerning their true motives.
The United States with its abundant reserves of relatively clean-burning natural gas is in a good position to manage a gradual shift to nuclear power, with minimum economic and political disruption—in sharp contrast to the Green New Deal. Why should America rely on GND unicorn dust when it has a practical alternative available?
Aesthetics matter. There are few things uglier than a big wind farm or solar panel array. Full reliance on renewal energy would require vast tracts of land to be converted into energy factories: the grim satanic mills of the Green Revolution. In my opinion, we should avoid doing so if at all possible.
Mr. Zubrin is obviously correct. Nuclear power is a proven technology with an excellent safety and environmental record that is quite capable of supplying our civilization with the energy it needs. On the other hand, the case for so-called renewables rests on a set of speculative premisses, seasoned with a big pinch of wishful thinking.
I see Zubrin’s point about the anti nuclear lobby. Obama was pretty good at kicking cans down the road for someone else to solve, like nuclear repositories and Iranian nuclear treaties. But I think the bigger challenge for nuclear is the regulatory regime.
In the US and Canada, it’s a mess. Well intentioned and competent fabricators and contractors struggle to unravel and determine what is required. Codes and regulatory guides take decades to be updated. I have worked on Vogtle (the only plant under construction in NA since Three Mile Is) and I have visited the identical design being built in China. There was a world of difference in schedule and approach.
I recall attending a conference with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in a panel discussion where one member, unbidden, declared that it was the best regulator in the world. If that’s not hubris.......
Yes the CCP is evil and they may be cutting corners but we could do much better. What I saw there was a professional, safety conscious and technically advanced project being completed in a fraction of the time.
So yes nuclear power is a solution if we want to make it one.
To be fair Eric a LOT of US government regulatory agencies think they are the best in the world. I am not sure if I should make this comment here or in the comments section for the podcast second half but I do think there is a problem with Claire's view in the podcast that we have to respect democracy even when we disagree with it in that is I think are huge tensions when you give veto rights to voters at the state level in the US or at the EU Member State level in the EU as to whether or not to allow nuclear power. That is you invite regulatory and democratic arbitrage and anger/resistance to that arbitrage.
I mentioned that earlier today I was out having lunch just down the road from the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant in New Hampshire whose construction was wildly controversial at the time. My personal opinion is that part of the reason it was so controversial is not because of the largely spurious claims about safety it's opponents mostly living across the state line a mile or two away in Massachusetts were making but the plant construction was an end run around the fact that at the time nuclear was very unpopular in Massachusetts at a democratic level and the same plant wouldn't and couldn't be built in the bay state. So from the standpoint of the plant's opponents in Massachusetts while they never said this publically the resented the plants backers in state of New Hampshire building a nuclear plant that far exceeded the power consumption needs of New Hampshire just across the state border that was obviously intended to be an "end one" around what was a very popular policy democratically in Massachusetts against nuclear power. Thus the plants opponents like the Clamshell alliance unable to influence New Hampshire state politics in Concord from out of state essentially had through everything they had at screwing up and slowing down the US Federal level safety approval process to try to stop what they saw as an undemocratic end run around Massachusetts democratic sovereignty. Yucca Mountain in it's own way was another example of this.
So in conclusion if you accept the small d democratic right of German voters to reject nuclear power as Claire suggests you might also invite a very nasty fight when some enterprising people in France let say try to get around this prohibition by constructing a bunch of new nuclear plants on the French side of the Franco-German border and then export all of their electricity output into Germany like Seabrook's backers in New Hampshire did with Massachusetts. This is especially so when much of sentiment against nuclear is caused by disinformation to begin with.
Well, if a people deserve their government, then they also deserve the consequences of democratic accountability. So if the citizens of Germany oppose nuclear power, I presume they’re prepared to live with the consequences...
I would generally agree with this but we are seeing more and more evidence that in democratic countries populations are increasingly unwilling to live with the consequences of their decisions.
So presumably, you’re not anticipating a bright political future for the Greens...
Sterling Thomas7 min ago
I’m not sure this is the “debate forum” or just the comments section for this latest article on Nuclear Energy. Nevertheless, I’ll post my comments here.
First, I am a proponent of nuclear energy. The demand for reliable electricity will only increase as more and more electric vehicles come on line.
Second, I concur that fossil fuel carbon emissions should decrease for the many reasons that have been outlined over the last several days. The industrial revolution has (with little doubt) sped up the natural occurring warming cycle the earth has been experiencing over the last 15,000 years. We must do what we can, and be smart about it, not reactionary.
Third, solar and wind and hydro all have their place; however, the need for batteries and their components to provide electrical storage and continuity, make the total positive environmental effect suspect, and in need of rigorous scientific study. (Personally from my experience living off the grid, wind and solar always require an on site fossil fuel generator to fill in the energy gaps).
Finally, I spent over two years working on a permanent nuclear waste repository site back during the Reagan administration. Many areas around the country were being scientifically evaluated for safety and practicality. All the proposed locations were geographically isolated, and far from human population centers. The specific site I worked on was the subterranean salt formations in the Panhandle of Texas. Huge mine shafts were drilled and as well as many smaller exploratory cores. Although, it was an interesting study and much data gathered, it soon became apparent that any decision about a permanent waste site would be based on politics not science. I left the project before it’s completion but continued to follow its progress through friends and reports in the media.
Eventually, the funding dried up and the most distant, isolated, location was chosen in Nevada. Nevertheless, Senator Harry Reid used his power and influence to have President Obama cancel the project.
Conclusion, everybody wants electricity but no one wants the plant, waste products, wind and/or solar farms in their backyard. I’ve concluded nuclear power is our best chance out of this energy matrix. But until endless regulatory and environmental battles can be modulated and curtailed, I am disheartened, and increasingly cynical, that any real progress will be made.
In the end, we really are in control of nothing. But we must try. Why? Because that’s what we do with this large evolved brain. We can’t help it. A large asteroid could strike the earth and wipe us all out. This generally accepted theory as to one of the earths great extinction events was only in its infancy during my undergraduate days. The prevailing wisdom at the time was gradual environmental and evolutionary change. Now it seems that rapid change can, and does, occur after perhaps millennia of relative quiet. (Lots of minus points I know).
Aux armes, citoyens !!!
I am still trying to figure out what I want to say in this forum. Myself after having my second Covid shot on Thursday I went out for a really nice lunch along the New Hampshire Seacoast not far from the infamous Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant over the past few hours. So I at least can say I am putting my money were my mouth is with regards to nuclear power.
Something though I can't seem to figure out is whether this is a discussion about the world at large or just Europe? Whenever I bring up examples outside of Europe Ronald, Ben, and Alex seem to keep coming back at me saying that what happens outside of Europe is irrelevant to the discussion. I can't seem to figure out if this is the Cosmopolitan Europeanist or the Cosmopolitan Globalist.
I think Zubrin is correct. An increasing standard of living requires energy, and lots of it. While I agree that solar power has come a long way, and should be part of the solution, I am not convinced it will stand up to the increasing needs the way nuclear energy can and should. Keep in mind, I work for a company that is the largest manufacturer of industrial batteries in the world. I have a vested interest (literally) in a world that needs batteries. I think we always will, regardless of the source of baseload electricity. I think that if every home, everywhere, were powered by cheap and clean nuclear energy, there would be no need for solar power at all.
That said, I am not sure how we get that case across to policy makers. "Green" energy is chic. It can be done well, in fact my company has been working on smart inverter products that help homeowners reduce reliance on the grid. I think that affordable, small scale solar installations that are "behind the meter" and include storage can do a lot in the short term to alleviate reliance on dirty fossil fuels. I think that if we make these systems pay for themselves, we can have short term success. At my last calculation, such a system for my own home would be a net break even, paying for itself just as it needs to be replaced. Someday soon, I think, we'll be able to justify these costs.
Claire,
While I agree w Mr. Zubrin that nuclear power production is operationally very safe, I remain against nuclear power because the waste problem is not solved. I do have some background on the subject but it is just grad school research on the history of the waste question. So, an overview of the sweep of the questions and the maneuvers/responses. Nevada was the least problematic geologically but the site design would not hold the current (as of about 10-15 years ago) inventory of waste so was not in itself a complete solution. The U.S. government has been studying the disposal problem for decades. A place to start in the disposal lit review is with: National Research Council, Committee on Waste Disposal, The Disposal of Radioactive Waste on Land, (Washington: National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, 1957.
The researchers saw the problems in the 1950s and never devoted much in the way of prioritized R&D into the disposal problem. Geologic storage was one fashion and of the initial proposals for a number of sites, the then politically-weak Nevada was left standing in the disposal site NIMBY game of musical chairs. The Savannah, GA MOX project was at times promising but the tech solution never adequately matured. The WIPP in NM continues as a pilot but geologic storage in salt deposits, while better than most geologic storage solutions in many ways, is not problem-free.
From an accounting and moral perspective, on-site storage at production facilities closely associates the risk with the reward. This is a terrible solution but I believe that overall it remains "the best" in a cost-benefit sense. Certainly not a security and safety sense.
In my view, the new enthusiasm for nuclear power is a swing-for-the-fences attempt at the pill-theory of problem solving. Given the decades of hype about the peaceful atom, I'll remain highly skeptical until the technical evidence begins to outweigh the tech hype. And on the green tech hype questions, I am not a fan of solar - hell of an environmental footprint/impact across the full lifecyle.
The obvious retort is, Well, Dave, what is your solution? I have seriously studied this question for decades and I don't have a good answer other than getting off of coal and converting as much as possible to nat gas and wind but also getting away from solar as much as possible is a better answer than coal - I live in a city which is powered by awful ignite plants and would love to see this end asap.
Solve the waste problem for nuclear and I am onboard.
Best/Dave
The current volume of nuclear waste is small. Compared to the volume of decommissioned solar panel and wind turbine waist, it is really small. That is why Yucca Mountain was a good idea. All the current waste and much more would fit there easily.
Lithium mining and refining creates millions of tons of toxic waste. The Chinese dump it on the surface. That isn't good for the ecosystem.
Some 4 generations reactors can use the waste from the older reactors as fuel. That could be part of the solution.
I always thought Dixie Lee Ray (scientist and former governor of the state of Washington) had an idea worth pursuing. She noted that the floor of the deepest parts of the ocean has a high radiation level. She wanted to encase nuclear waste in really hard glass like material and drop it in these deep places where the radiation would fit right in.
Ken,
Both the decision to down select to Yucca in the late 1980s and the decision to walk away from Yucca decades later were arguably more political than technical. The solution has been a hot potato since the 1950s and the interest in and expenditure of political capital on disposal have been episodic.
I've heard the claims about the Gen4 reactors using waste as fuel but for now I see the Gen4 premise as tech hype. I'll buy it when we get beyond the paper engineering used to entice VC and federal R&D funding. Indeed, there is a tech maturity/plausibility reason that the tech hype has cooled off from its high point a few years ago. E.g. the "news" from MIT's reactor lab has dropped off quite a bit from just a few years back, etc. Perhaps a better solution is to not "highly" enrich and work with low-enriched uranium - economics are really just a matter of priority given the environmental urgency but I won't hold my breath on a political consensus becoming dominant in the U.S. that paying more sooner is better than the status quo of kicking the can down the road.
The AEC got way out in front of their skis with their licensing/disposal promises decades ago during the heyday. There was never any significant disposal R&D investment. Like most tech ideas, the enthusiasts up sell the plus side and disregard the downside - indeed, this is the case for solar. Wind turbine waste is less of an issue.
I too wonder why deep ocean or subduction zone disposal hasn't panned out. That to me seems to be the only geologic option. There is plenty of high level waste from early projects in the 60s that are lying on the ocean floor off the coast of LA and Massachusetts - these were just in barrels. I haven't heard about emerging consequences and these were certainly not disposed of contentiously.
Anyone have thoughts on why Germany is going away from nuclear and coal and towards gas and wind?
Dave,
I also would prefer more concrete results on Gen4 before I get too excited. I am impatiently waiting for a prototype that produces electricity.
I think things will move faster if we can get away from on-site construction and each reactor complex being a unique design.
Producing identical reactors with parts small enough to be transported and assembled at the site would seem to be the best end result if we can get there.
I don't understand Germany on this issue at all. Is a sort of mass hysteria a possible explanation?
On the Gen4 and standardizing designs - agreed. I'm convinced that the tech is matureable but it needs some work. Yes, the nuclear power vision of the 1950s was to place generation close to consumption. Disney's 'Our Friend the Atom' was very enthusiastic about the possibilities of nuclear generation.
On Germany, my read is that they just really want to get off of coal but I'm not sure about the nuclear angle. I keep up with the ideas at the Clean Energy Wire site but don't claim to have a comprehensive understanding. In contrast, France has been very up on nuclear for decades and their geologic storage has been in facilities less suitable than the Yucca geology.
Since the proposition itself is a form of "your" actions have consequences fallacy, the whole debate is illogical.
Proposition also assume, a priori, that there can only be one result from the claimed mattering, which further fails logic.
Eric Hines